E 

r54 



The Numbers and Rosters of 

the Two Armies in the 

Civil War 



BY GEN. GATES P. THRUSTON 

OF NASHVILLE, TENN. 





Class LAAL 

Book T^ t 



7 



The Numbers and Rosters of the 
Two Armies in the 

Civil War y / •7 



GEN. GATES P. THRUSTON 

OF NASHVILLE, TENN. 






'fh\!>l^,\ 



The Numbers and Rosters of the Two 
Armies in the Civil War/ 

{This article reprinted from The Olympian Magazine) 



In this new era of universal devo- 
tion to the interests of our country, 
I am reluctant to revive the con- 
troversies of the past or to recall the 
victories or defeats of the Civil \\'ar. 
There is a subject, however, that has 
not received the attention from our 
military critics and writer? at the 
North or South which its importance 
merits. I shall take the liberty, there- 
fore, of considering briefly The Num- 
bers and Rosters of the tzvo Armies in 
the Civil War. 

The veterans of the Civil ^^^ar, 
Federal and Confederate, are com- 
mending our able Secretary of War 
for his efforts to obtain the names, 
numbers, and full enrollment of the 
soldiers of the Confederacy. These 
records are necessary to complete the 
official history of the war, and to give 
just recognition to the American sol- 
diers of the South. 

We have had very meager and in- 
definite figures by which to compare 
the number of enlistments and the 
magnitude of the two armies. Federal 
and Confederate, in the great conflict. 
Unfavorable comparisons and con- 
trasts are frequently suggested as to 
the number of soldiers engaged upon 
each side, but I believe when the offi- 
cial rolls and figures are placed on the 
same basis and finally reported and 
compared, there will be no room for 
contrasting criticism as to the mag- 
nitude of the two armies, or as to the 



courage, the prowess, or generalship 
of the American soldiers from the 
North or the South. 

Fortunately the names and full en- 
rollment of the union forces are .com- 
plete. The official figures, embracing 
the entire rolls, the enlistments and re- 
enlistments for long and short terms 
of service, the one hundred days' men, 
three months' men, the ninety days' 
men, the veteran reserve, the home 
guards, the colored troops, amount to 
the large aggregate enrollment of 
2,778.304 men. This large total re- 
duced to the basis of a full tenn en- 
listment for the war would probably 
cut down the aggregate number to 
about 1,700,000 men. 

The absence of systematic records 
of the Confederate forces, the loss or 
destruction of official papers, during 
the evacuation of Richmond, and dur- 
ing the chaos of the reconstruction 
period, has left no definite summary 
nor figures by which the total enroll- 
ment of the armies and detached 
forces of the Confederacy can be ac- 
curately estimated. 

In 1(%9, soon after the Civil War, 
and during the era of prejudice that 
naturally succeeded. Dr. Joseph Jones, 
an ex-Confederate surgeon. Secretary 
of the Southern Historical Society at 
New Oreleans, prepared a paper upon 
the "Confederate Losses During the 
War." In this paper he stated that 
"the available Confederate force, ca- 



*This article, reprinted from The Olympian magazine of November, 1903, published at 
Nashville, Tenn., contains the main portion of an address delivered by Gen. G. P. Thrus- 
ton before the Society of the Army of the Cumberland in Washington, D. C, October 14, 
1903, the advance sheets having been furnished The Olympian by the author. 



NUMBERS AND ROSTERS OF THE TIVO ARMIES. 



pahlo of active service in the field, did 
not (luring tlic entire war exceed six 
linndred thousand men." I quote 
from his brief paper It contains no 
statistics nor special grounds for his 
estimate of the number of forces. Dr. 
Jones states that his "calculation is 
given only as an approximation." 

The official jiapers of the Confede- 
rate War De]wrtment, including the 
incomplete army rolls, had been cap- 
tured at the close of the war, and were 
stored in the War Department at 
Washington, and, therefore, I do not 
think Dr. Jones' estimate from mem- 
ory or unofficial data can be relied 
upon as accurate. ".Available force" 
is a very indefinite and confusing 
term. We would usually interpret it 
as the efficient field force or fighting 
strength of an army. It does not 
generally constitute more than alx^ut 
sixty or sixty-five per cent, of the full 
army enrollment. There may have 
been a million enlistments on the origi- 
nal Confederate rolls, during the four 
years of the war, including re-enlist- 
ments and transfers, and men on post 
or detached and temporaiy duty, or 
home guards, veteran or invalid sol- 
diers guarding forts, or enlisted de- 
serters ("who are counted on the Fed- 
eral rolls), and yet out of this whole 
mimber, the availalile force capable of 
active service in the field may not have 
been over 600,000 soldiers. The aver- 
age effective strength of the Federal 
army during the Civil War was sixty- 
five per cent, of its enrollment. In the 
same proportion "an available force" 
of 600,000 Confederates would repre- 
sent on enrollment of ncarlv a million 
men, or to be exact, 92.3,076. 

Dr. Jones' "approximate" estimate 
was published in the Southern Histor- 
ical Society papers, and later his 
figures were republished in various 
forms throughout the South, Un- 



fortunately bis statement that the 
"available force in the field, capable 
of active service amounted to 600,000 
men" was quoted and requoted from 
time to time, until, by some process 
of evolution, it was later regarded as 
an official statement of the entire en- 
listed forces of the Southern .\rmy of 
all classes and duties, and it is now 
(juite generally accepted at the South 
as the aggregate of the enrolled forces 
of the Confederacy. 

Dr. Jones' 600,000 estimate is en- 
graved upon enduring monuments in 
the South, commemorating the Con- 
federacy, in contrast with the engraved 
figures of the large official Federal en- 
rollment. The contrasting figures arc 
printed upon the certificates of mem- 
bership in the Confederate socie- 
ties. The Southern orators usually re- 
jieat the contrasting numbers at meet- 
ings and dedications in honor of the 
Confederate soldier. They are printed 
in the Sotithern school books, and thus 
a misleading historical error m figures, 
as I believe, originally possibly a 
just "approximate calculation" of the 
available force of the Confederacy, 
has been repeated, until its original 
significance and meaning have been 
changed and forgotten : and this 
mainly from lack of the full Confed- 
erate rolls and of definite information 
upon the subject, and usually with 
no intention to misrepresent the facts. 

It was not the special duty of any 
Southern Governor, or Confederate 
veteran, to worry through the haystack 
of Confederate army rolls to find the 
exact mimber of the total enlistments. 
'J"he majority of the Southern veterans 
are too busy with the earnest things of 
life to bother with the statistics of the 
Civil War, and the camp fire or biv- 
ouac regulars who. after the manner 
of our Northern Grand Army posts, 
usually administer upon the military 



NUMBERS AND ROSTERS OF THE TWO ARMIES. 



affairs of the Confederacy at the 
South, were quite content with Dr. 
Jones' estimate of 600,000. Why 
should they not be? It is certainly 
small enough ! 

The main material is in the War 
Department at Washington. The 
carpet-baggers had also camped in 
several of the Southern capitol build- 
ings, and perhaps had lighted their 
pipes and kindled the fires with the 
army rolls. Occasionally some thought- 
ful Confederate has urged in the South- 
ern papers that the accepted estimate 
of Confederate forces was much too 
small, but the protests have made 
very little impression. No salary was 
waiting for the industrious historical 
pioneer who might investigate and 
work up a reliable summary of the 
rolls. It was in fact a convenient 
temptation to accept Dr. Jones" "ap- 
proximate calculation" as the true 
history and number of the entire en- 
rollment. Dr. Jones was a most ex- 
cellent gentleman and an accom- 
plished physician. I knew him per- 
sonally. Six hundred thousand in 
round numbers sounded well. The 
very figvires suggested the immortal 
six hundred of Balaklava. They were 
enshrined in poetry and printed in 
eloquent prose, and thus those ancient 
figures of Dr. Jones and this chronic 
and misleading historical error, as I 
believe it to be, have drifted down to 
our time without serious investigation 
or contradiction, and as I have stated, 
mainly from lack of exact and definite 
information, and usually with no in- 
tention to misrepresent the facts. 

I desire to present a brief analysis 
of the figures representing the enroll- 
ments and actual strength of the two 
armies. Confederate and Federal, in 
the Civil War, and some reflections 
regarding them, with the view of cor- 
recting, to some extent, at least, this 



widely spread misapprehension as to 
the 600,000 estimate, and to give a 
more just impression of the actual 
fighting strength upon each side. I 
trust I may be able to discuss the sub- 
ject impartially and without partisan 
spirit. The truth, I am sure, will leave 
no grounds for unfavorable comment 
or comparison, as to the military 
record upon either side. 

The time has come when the veter- 
ans of both armies desire to know the 
truth, the whole truth, unbiased by 
sentiment or prejudice. The sincere 
purposes, the patriotic aspirations, and 
the honorable and indeed brilliant 
record of the Confederate soldier have 
long since been crystallized into his- 
tory, and no presentation of the facts 
can detract from the laurels he has 
won. His enduring courage and man- 
hood through the years of the great 
confiict stand clear above the collapse 
at Appomattox and have survived 
after the war in a citizenship of 
which any nation might be proud. 
His sons shared with our sons the 
new honors of the Spani.sh War in 
loyal devotion to our united country. 
The heroism of the American soldiers 
on both sides of the great struggle 
will continue to challenge the admira- 
tion of the student of history as long 
as the story is told. 

VVe shall not be able to know the 
total enrollment of the soldiers of the 
Confederacy until Secretary Root's 
investigations are completed, and the 
final reports are received from the 
Southern States (and it may be years 
before final and satisfactory results 
are reached), but for some time past 
we have had approximate informa- 
tion and figures that I think readily 
establish the fact that the estimate of 
an "available force of 600,000 sol- 
diers" does not represent much more 
than half of the enlistments, and re- 



NUMBERS AND ROSTERS OE THE TWO ARMIES. 



enlistments, and transfers, and enroll- 
ments of Confederate soldiers during 
the four years of the war, wliich must 
have aggregated in numljcr^ at least 
a million men. 

It is, thereft)rc, manifestly unjust to 
set up in contrasting figures the full 
official Federal enlistment on the one 
side, and the "available force in the 
field" estimate of 1869, on the other 
side, as history or true history. They 
represent two entirely different stand- 
ards of estimation that are confusing. 

This method of calculation anrl crit- 
icism is a relic of the war and of the 
days when we were all partisans. It 
is one of the myths of that unhappy 
era that has outlived its day and gen- 
eration. If practical and useful re- 
sults are to be reached, the two full 
enrollments, or rosters of enlistments, 
Federal and Confederate, should be 
placed upon the same basis and com- 
jjared and contrasted, and I am satis- 
fied that neither side will sutfer by this 
just method of comparison. 

Upon making some investigation as 
to the approximate numbers of the 
Confederate enrollment. I find that the 
State of North Carolina some time 
since printed the rolls of its Confede- 
rate soldiers, aggregating about 12.^,- 
000 men. A more recent summary in- 
creases the number to 127,000. The 
State of Tennessee has long claimed 
and fairly established the fact that she 
sent 115,(XX) .soldiers into the Southern 
armies, besides her contribution to the 
l^nion forces. At the dedication of the 
battlefield of Chickamauga, (lovernor 
Oates, of the State of Alabama, in 
his admirable address, reported that 
Alabama had furnished 100,000 sol- 
diers to the Confederacy, a larger pro- 
portion than I have assigned to Ten- 
nessee. Mississippi by a quite gener- 
ally accepted computation furnished 
85,000. 



By these estimates the enlistments 
or enrollments of these four States ag- 
gregate 427,000 soldiers. Virginia, 
according to the official reports, sent 
twelve or fourteen more regiments 
into the war than North Carolina, or 
their equivalent in battalions and com- 
panies, and the State of Georgia a 
luunber of regiments more. A pro- 
portionate increase in the enlistments 
in Virginia and Georgia would cre<lit 
X'irgiuia with an enrollment of about 
1.^0,(XX). and Georgia witii about 125,- 
000 or 130,000. 

These six of the eleven seceding 
States, by this estimate, seem to have 
furnished over 700,000 Confederate 
soldiers, or enlistments to that number. 
The remaining five seceding States, 
including the large States of Texas, 
Louisiana, and Arkansas, according to 
the census of 1860-61, giving the num- 
ber of men of military age in them. 
should have furnishccl over 300,000 
soldiers, computing numbers in the 
same jiroportion. Add these numbers 
to the 700.000 and j'ou have an ap- 
proximate aggregate of over a million 
men, not counting tlie large number of 
soldiers rprobably 100.000) furnished 
l)y the border States to the Confed- 
eracy. 

.Su])pose we try another method of 
calculation. On the base of the im- 
posing and beautiful Confederate mon- 
ument erected at Austin, the capital 
city of Texas, the Confederate and 
b'ederal enlistments are engraved as 
follows : 

"Number of men enlisted — Confed- 
erate Armies, 700,000; Federal Ar- 
mies, 2,859,132." 

An increase of nearly 100.000 over 
the official Federal figures, and also of 
100.(X)0 over the usual Confederate 
estimates. .Again, and below the 
above inscription on the same monu- 
ment : 



NUMBERS AND ROSTERS OF THE TWO ARMIES. 



"Losses from all causes — Confede- 
rate, 437,000; Federal, 485,216." 

It will be observed that there is 
manifestly an error upon the face of 
this enduring record, presuming death 
losses may be intended. It seems im- 
possible that there should be a loss of 
437,000 Confederate soldiers out of 
so small an enlistment as 700,000, or 
a loss of over four-sevenths of the en- 
tire enrolled forces of the Confede- 
racy. Upon the examination of the 
census of 1890, twenty-five years after 
the Civil War, I find that at that time, 
there were still living in the United 
States 432,020 Confederate soldiers, 
leaving out of the account the number 
of deaths that occurred during this 
long interval. 

Now, if we should add to the num- 
ber of surviving Confederate soldiers 
in 1890 the number of deaths during 
the war, as registered on the Texas 
monument, we have an aggregate of 
nearly 900,000 Confederates. Add to 
this number the deaths during the in- 
terval of twenty-five years, according 
to the approved American tables of 
death rates, 144,000, and we will have 
over a million soldiers or enlistments. 

Again, referring to the official cen- 
sus of 1890. If there were then sur- 
viving 432,000 Confederate soldiers, 
the American life tables show that at 
the close of the war in 1865 tliere 
must have been 600,000 surviving 
Confederate soldiers, after all the 
losses of the war are deducted. (Ac- 
cording to the life tables the numbers 
would be about 575.000, but the veter- 
ans of the war, owing to their liisabil- 
ities, would show a slightly increased 
death rate, bringing the numbers up 
to at least 600,000.) How much more 
accurate are the official figures of the 
census than the "approximate esti- 
mates" and misleading guesses of the 
local historians, sometimes so sensitive 



lest errors might creep into the his- 
torical records. 

Let us take a third illustration. 
According to the census of 1860 the 
eleven seceding States (omitting Mis- 
souri and Kentucky) had more than 
a million white men eligible to mili- 
tary duty — that is, between the ages 
of eighteen and forty-five ; and, as 
General Grant is said to have aptly re- 
marked, during the war the Confede- 
rate authorities "robbed the cradle and 
the grave" for soldiers between the 
ages of seventeen and fifty years or 
over, in their struggle to maintain the 
strength of their armies ! Thus in- 
creasing the number of available men 
to about 1,200,000. Owing to the 
South's large agricultural slave pop- 
ulation, she was able to send to her 
armies, or to some class of military 
service, almost her entire white male 
population. Over 200,000 youths in 
these States arrived at the military 
age during the four years of the war. 
With this large number of available 
soldiers at her command, does it seem 
just, or complimentary, to the seced- 
ing States, to insist that only one-half 
of their white military population was 
willing to enlist in the .Southern 
cause ? 

Is it not more of a compliment to 
the courage and patriotism of these 
States to recognize the fact, so often 
claimed by them, that nearly their en- 
tire white male population, including 
young and old, capable of bearing 
arms, arose to resist what the South 
then regarded as invasion and coer- 
cion, rather than attempt to limit their 
total enlistments and re-enlistments to 
the small number of six or seven hun- 
dred thousand, about one-half of their 
available military population, omitting 
the large number of recruits from the 
border States, which much more than 
equaled the Federal enlistments in the 
seceding States. 



NUMBERS AND ROSTERS OF THE TWO ARMIES. 



The State of Ohio, with a popula- 
tion in I860 of about ouc-tliird of the 
population of the secechng States, ac- 
cording^ to her official reports, enlisted 
over 313,000 soldiers for long and 
short terms to maintain the integrity 
of the Union. According to the cen- 
sus Indiana sent over seventy-four 
per cent, of her men of military age 
into the war. Can the eleven seced- 
ing States afford to admit that Ohio 
and Indiana were more patriotic than 
the South, ami that their sons, enlisted 
in much larger proportion than the 
men of the -South, who were resisting 
the (so-called) invasion of their 
homes and firesides? 1 think not. 

The theory of the total enrollment 
of only 600,000 or 700,000 men cer- 
tainly does injustice to the South. It 
minimizes its ]iatriotism. It does in- 
justice to the North in presenting a 
contrast of figures that has no real 
basis of fact. Can the South afford to 
exalt and idealize the courage of a 
limited number of its soldiers at the 
expense of its patriotism or what it 
regarded as loyalty to the secession 
cause? If there were only 600,000 
patriots on the army rolls, there nnist 
have been 300.000 or 400,000 unpa- 
triotic shirks hiding out in the woods 
somewhere. The theory of small 
numbers cuts both ways. It places 
the South in a dilemma. It reminds 
me of the story of the old I'^dcral 
at the North, who talked so much at 
the family fireside about how he had 
fought and how many rebels he had 
killed in the war, that one day his 
little son said to him, "I say, Pa, did 
anybody heli) you put down the Re- 
bellion ?" 

When the Confederate rolls arc 
finally summarized I think it will be 
found that there were other Southern 
patriots who took a hand in the big 
war besides the alleged 600,000. 



Mr. Blaine in his "Political His- 
tory" states that the armies of the 
South numbered about 1,100,000 men. 
\\ hen the rosters of the regiments and 
detached forces of the Confederacy 
are complete, as called for by the Sec- 
retary of War, I think the aggregate 
will nearly reach .Mr. 1 Maine's calcu- 
lation. General Ainsworth, of the 
War Department, has recently esti- 
mated their strength at about a millidii 
men, and Senator Daniel, of Virginia, 
at 800,000. 

I have lived in the South nearly 
forty years. My ancestry is mainly 
Southern, and 1 feel that I have a 
right to discuss this subject as a 
Southerner, as well as from the stand- 
point of an c.v-Fcdcral soldier. I have 
perhaps become sensitive as to this 
contrast of figures, but to my mind it 
gives so misleading an impression that 
it should not be perpetuated and al- 
lowed to go down as history to the 
new generations. North and South. 
The figures 2.700.000 or 2,800,000 and 
600,000 have a kind of five to one 
flavor and significance quite out of 
harmony with the I'ederal army ideas 
of history. They, in fact, suggest the 
arithmetical proportions of that old 
ante-bellum myth, or fiction, held by 
an occasional radical or hot blood of 
the South, "befo' the vvah" that one 
Sdutherner coidd take care of about 
five Yankees, a very misleading 
dogma as it turned out. 

The figures remind me of an inci- 
dent of the luihappy and demoralizing 
days of reconstruction: Judge Rice, a 
prominent and well-known politician 
of Alabama, who had been a Demo- 
crat and a Confederate soldier, under- 
took to change front and run for 
Congress upon the Republican ticket. 
When he delivered his first campaign 
speech his old Democratic friends 
began to guy him with questions : 



NUMBERS AND ROSTERS OF THE TWO ARMIES. 



"Say, Jedge, didn't you urge our 
young men to jine the Southern army? 
Didn't you say one Southerner could 
whip five Yankees?" "Well, perhaps 
1 did," the judge replied. "Didn't 
you say right here in Huntsville that 
we could whip the damn Yankees 
with pop guns?" "Yes, I did," the 
judge said, "but damn it, the Yankee?, 
wouldn't fight us with pop guns. They 
wouldn't fight us that way. The ras- 
cals came at us with powder and shot 
— circumstances changed." 

I have rarely met a Southerner who 
claimed to be a "five to one hero" 
during my residence at the South. I 
think the species has long since be- 
come extinct. We are all more or 
less influenced by our environment. [ 
have had some things to learn at the 
South and some to unlearn. My con- 
victions as to the war, I may say, have 
stuck pretty close by me, but I would 
be recreant to the truth, to iny home, 
and to my friends at the South, if I 
had anything but kindness and com- 
pliments to report a= to them. The 
veterans of the Southern army are 
among my best friends. They are the 
South's best citizens — the peers of the 
best type of gentlemen to be found in 
any country, liberal, generous in sen- 
timent and free from partisanship. 
They are looking to the present and 
the future, not complaining as to the 
past. The friendships, the mutual 
consideration and regard of the sol- 
diers at the South, Confederate and 
Federal, have been an important 
factor in allaying our political antag- 
onism and reviving the s])irit of na- 
tionality throughout the South. Xo 
section of our great republic has to- 
day more interest or pride in its unity 
and its destiny than the South. 

Turning to my subject again, and 
to the large official Federal enroll- 
ment, we find that the number of sol- 



diers credited to the national armies 
usually gives a misleading impression, 
owing to the very completeness of the 
official record. The large aggregate 
of 2,778,000 in round numbers must 
be carefully analyzed and sifted to give 
a just estimate of the available force, 
or of the fighting strength of the 
Union armies. These figures include 
the entire enrollments or enlistments 
of all classes, single, double and treble 
during the four years of the war. 

As I have stated, they include all 
local and temporary enlistments. For 
instance : The First Ohio Infantry, 
with which I entered the service, en- 
listed three times. First in 1861 "for 
three months," again in 1861 "for 
three years," and in 1864 "till the end 
of the war." Thus this large regiment 
is counted three times in the general 
enlistment. One hundred and thirty- 
six regiments enlisted two or three 
times during the war, and are counted 
two or three times on the rolls. Three 
hundred regiments entered upon the 
rolls served upon the border or in the 
rear, and never got into action or saw 
a battle. Nearly 400,000 enlistments 
were for one year ; 88,000 for nine 
months ; 108,000 for three months, and 
over 86,000 for one hundred days. 
Nearly 300,000 of the men enrolled 
enlisted just before the close of the 
war, too late to participate in its active 
campaigns or engagements. One hun- 
dred and eighty-six thousand enlist- 
ments of colored troops were carried 
upon the rolls. Owing to various 
causes the names of the same soldiers 
often apjiear upon the general roll four 
or fives times. Every transfer added 
a new name to the roll. These illus- 
trations enable us to realize how mis- 
leading are the large figures and num- 
bers usually credited to the national^ 
armies. They give an exaggerated im- 
pression of the actual forces. If every 



8 NUMBERS AND ROSTERS OF THE TirO ARMIES. 



enlistment, re-enlistment and transfer 
of soldiers made in the Southern 
armies during;; the four years of war 
was counted u])()n their rolls, it would 
certainly nearly duuhle any estimate 
of their availal)le force in the field. 

Mr. Fox, who has published the 
most complete statistics of the Federal 
forces in the Civil War. states that "it 
is doubtful if there were two million 
individuals actually in service during 
the war." ou the Federal side — that is, 
for all long and short terms of service. 

The official report of the Provost 
Marshal General shows the combined 
strength of the Federal armies at dif- 
ferent periods during the war (deduct- 
ing absentees) in round nund)crs as 
follows : 

(_)n July 1, 1861, tin- coiiil)iiKHl aniiiis 
nuiiilxTcd l.S3,UtK). 

January I, 1862, the combined ar- 
mies numbered 527,(XX). 

January 1. 1863. the combined ar- 
mies numbered 698,a)0. 

January 1, 1864. the combined ar- 
mies numl)ercd 611, (XX). 

March 31, 1865, the combined ar- 
mies num1)ered 657,000. 

This was "the available force capa- 
ble of active service in the field," to 
use Dr. Jones' expression regarding 
the Confederate forces; more than 
half of them were practically rear 
guards. As you see, the numbers do 
not run up into the millions. They 
include the entire Union forces, at the 
front, in the rear, in reserve, guarding 
cities, bridges, railways, block houses 
and stores. The front of the army 
line extended from the Atlantic ( )cean 
to the Rocky Mountains. 

The armies of the Confederacy 
were of necessity much less in nimi- 
bers. They had probably not one- 
half the strength of the forces en- 
gaged upon the Federal side, perha])S 
less, much less than one-half, but at 
the front at the points of acttial con- 



tact and conflict, in the great battles, 
owing to their interior lines, railways, 
and defensive advantages, the South 
as we know ftill well, was able to bring 
equal or nearly e(|ual forces into ac- 
tion. 

The stupendous ami appalling task 
that confronted the armies of the 
Union required a vastly superior 
force ; a task that might well have 
caused the ])atriotic people of the 
North and border States to hesitate in 
dismay. An army of invasion and ag- 
gression, under the conditions of mod- 
ern warfare, has to meet and over- 
come tremendous odds, as compared 
with the demands u])on an army of de- 
fense. This general rule as to offens- 
ive and defensive warfare has been 
well recognized ever since the time 
when Leonidas and his little band of 
Spartans held hack the hosts of the 
Persian army in the narrow pass of 
Thermopylae. 

In the American Revolution, our 
small Colonial forces — 

"The Old Continentals, 
With their ragged regimentals" — 

held the disciplined armies of England 
at bay for six or seven years. When 
the British ventured to leave their 
ships and the cities of the Atlantic 
Coast, and march into the interior, 
their campaigns of invasion soon 
ended at Saratoga, King's Mountain, 
and Yorktown. General .Andrew Jack- 
son, with a handful of Tentiesseeans 
and Kentuckians, occupying a strong 
defensive position below New Orleans, 
in a single battle well nigh destroyed 
I'ackingham's large army of I'.ritish 
veterans. 

The difficulties of an army of in- 
vasion were remarkably illustrated in 
the recent war in South Africa. Su- 
periority in numbers to the extent of 
ten or twenty, or even thirty to one, 
did not seem to bring success to Brit- 



NUMBERS AND ROSTERS OF THE TWO ARMIES. 



ish arms. Great Britain sent over 
445,000 soldiers, according to recent 
official reports, to fight an armed force 
of perhaps 30,000 or 40.000 Boers. 
We know the English, Scotch High- 
landers, the Irish, the Canadians and 
Australians made good soldiers. The 
resources of the British were appar- 
ently without limit, yet this "wretched 
little population of Boers," as Lord 
Salisbury calls them, defied the power 
and prowess of the whole British em- 
pire for two or three years, and the 
final result was only humiliation and 
partial success. 

Our friends, General John Morgan 
and General Basil Duke, undertook a 
little byplay in the way of a campaign 
of invasion north of the Ohio River. 
They were as gallant and dashing a 
pair of soldiers as ever led a charge. 
They struck terror into the hearts of 
the home guards for a time, but their 
campaign soon degenerated into a kind 
of cavalry stampede, that was finally 
rounded up at Columbus, Ohio. 

When Robert E. Lee, the great and 
lovable General of the Confederacy, 
crossed Mason and Dixon's line, and 
marshaled his splendid army upon the 
hills near Gettysburg, only a few miles 
north of Maryland, how rapidly his 
difficulties multiplied. The Army of 
the Potomac had but recently suffered 
repeated disasters upon Virginia soil. 
General Meade had been in command 
only three days, but when his army 
became an army of defense, upon the 
loyal hills of Pennsylvania, General 
Lee's army of invasion was soon com- 
pelled to retire behind the protecting 
line of the Potomac River. 

Ah ! the love of home is an inspir- 
ing sentiment. It gets close to the 
heart. It nerves the arm of the de- 
fenders to strike hard — 



"For our altars and our fires, 
God and our native land." 



If an army of invasion (so called) 
from the South could have fought its 
way northward, and threatened or at- 
tacked the cities and homes of New 
England or Michigan, they would have 
struck the same desperate courage with 
which the South met that so-called 
army of invasion from the North at 
Shiloh and Atlanta. General Lee had 
to meet this new spirit of defense 
when he crossed the line and ventured 
to invade the North. 

These illustrations show how im- 
possible it is to measure the honors or 
to fix the standard of courage or man- 
hood on either side of a great conflict 
like our Civil War. The disproportion 
in numbers lays no foundation for un- 
favorable comparison or contrasting 
criticism. There are other controlling 
factors that must be taken into ac- 
count, if the question of superiority is 
to be considered, or a judicial decision 
reached as to which were the best 
types of physical prowess and man- 
hood in the Civil War. 

The territory of the seceding States 
(omitting Missouri and Kentucky), 
comprised over 800,000 square miles, 
an area as great, or greater, than the 
combined territory of Great Britain 
(including Ireland), France, Germany 
and Italy. It had a white population 
of five or six million Americans of al- 
most pure Anglo-Saxon strain. It is 
the land of the Scotch-Irish men, the 
Puritans of the South, tough in fiber 
of brain and body, the land of the de- 
scendants of the old-time Virginia 
aristocracy, of the South Carolina 
Hotspurs, a class of Americans born 
and bred to rule or fight. Great dis- 
tances had to be fought over, high 
mountains scaled, deep rivers crossed, 
vast stores transported, and the whole 
area in the rear defended. What 
greater e.xample of courage and man- 
hood has historv, ancient or modern, 



lo NUMBERS AND ROSTERS OF THE TWO ARMIES. 



funiishcd than was shown by our na- 
tional armies in inarching five hun- 
dred miles down into the heart of the 
Confederacy, scaling the high moun- 
tains, crossing the deep rivers, push- 
ing through forest and field into the 
territory of six million Americans of 
our own blood, the home of more than 
a million Confederate soldiers, and 
what is more, staying there, winning 
great victories there, and finally main- 
taining and restoring the supreme au- 
thority of the National Covernment 
over this vast Southern section and 
population. There is no rule of num- 
bers that can measure such success. 
The very achievement defies compari- 
son or criticism. 

When our beloved and great-hearted 
President. Abraham Lincoln, stated 
that he was proud to belong to the 
same race as the Southern soldiers 
who marched with General Pickett up 
the slopes of Cemetery Hill, at (lettys- 
burg. he i)aid a beautiful and well- 
meriteil tribute to the almost match- 
less soldiers of General Lee, but what 
veteran of the armies of the Cumljer- 
land was not reminded by the remark 
that the slopes of Mission Ridjje at 
Chattanooga were even steeper than 
the famed heights of Gettysburg? In 
the cruel drama of war, what UKjre 
si)lendi(l example of enduring courage 
does history recall than was shown 
when Rosecrans' army changed front 
and stayed the storm of disaster at 
Murfreesboro, turning defeat into 
victory; or when glorious old "Pap 
Thomas." w-ith half our army of the 
Cumberland, held at bay from noon 
till night the entire army of Bragg and 
Longstreet. far oflE upon the hills of 
Northern Georgia, at Chickamauga, 
nearly four hundred miles south of 
our base of supplies? 

No, my comrades, there is no stand- 
ard by which we can compare the sol- 



diers of the North and the s<jldiers of 
the South in the great war that does 
not reflect honor upon both. ]t was 
a war between Americans, .\nglo- 
Saxons in the main, of the same gen- 
eral ancestry and of the same inherited 
characteristics. 

The best lesson of the Civil War. 
and one that every section of o\w great 
Republic should remember, teaches us 
that there are no geographical limits 
to American manhood. It can not be 
sectionalized. All opinions to the con- 
trary must be regarded as the o(T- 
s])ring of mere ])artisanship and pro- 
vincialism. They do not rise to the 
true standard of the broad spirit of 
Americanism. As one of our distin- 
guished Confederates, ex-Governor 
Porter, of Tennessee, stated at the 
dedication of our Tennessee monu- 
ments. Confederate and Federal, at 
Chickamauga. "If the combatants had 
not already learned it, they learned it 
upon this field, that educated Ameri- 
cans, of every section of the American 
I'nion. were alike brave in action, and 
that advantiages won by either re- 
sulted from the character of their 
leadership." 

In the conflicts and struggles be- 
tween the Puritan and the Cavalier 
and their descendants, many victories 
have been won and lost, but the ques- 
tion as to "\\'ho is the master" is still 
unsettled. 

In the words of the poet of .Scot- 
land there are — 

"Hills l>eyond PciuI.iikI aiul Kinds beyonJ 

Forth, 
P.C the Lords in the Lowlands, there are 

chiefs in the .N'orth." 

/\s Admiral Schley said of Santiago, 
"There's glory enough to go round." 
Yes ; and to spare. We are proud to 
have him as our guest tonight. Every 
true soldier honors the grand Admiral 
for his generous sentiment. 



NUMBERS AND ROSTERS OF THE TWO ARMIES. ii 



We won the honors of success in the 
Civil War, and we know full well that 
we shall never have a share in any 
other fluty or achievement so useful, 
so honorable, or so memorable ; but the 
Federal soldier must be cold and un- 
generous indeed, whether his home be 
at the North or South, if he fails to 
pay the tribute of respect and admira- 
tion to the soldiers of the Confederacy, 
who matched deeds with us through 
four long years, who with a narrower 
and mistaken loyalty, as we think, but 
with like sincerity, courage and devo- 
tion, and under greater trials and sac- 
rifices, fought a losing fight, clear 
through to the bitter end of the great 
tragedy ; who lost all save the jewel 
of an honorable record, and yet, with 
enduring manhood arose from defeat, 
and with equal courage and devotion 
turned their bronzed faces to the fu- 
ture, a future full of golden promise. 



and set about to build up anew and 
recreate their homes and country. 

And have they not, they and their 
sons and daughters, amid constant 
trials and embarrassments, recreated 
and rebuilt the South and brought that 
promise into fruition? Has not the 
South arisen from the ashes of war 
and waste into a splendid prosperity? 
Activities and energies, born of neces- 
sity and poverty have stimulated every 
avenue of commerce and developed 
her latent forces, until the South of 
today is rivaling the industrial and 
conunercial prosperity of the North. 
Neither tradition nor partisanship can 
stay her progress. 

The New South has no interest 
apart from her sisters of the North 
and West, and what is more, she is 
inspired with the same spirit of nation- 
ality and loyalty to every interest that 
afifects our common country. Her pa- 
triotiso) is as broad as the Republic. 



The Confederate Armies. 



To the Editor of the Olympian: 

In an article or address published 
in the last number of the Olvmpian, 
upon the "Numbers and Rosters of 
the Two Armies in the Civil War," I 
endeavored to show that the Confed- 
erate armies were much larger than 
the estimate generally accepted at the 
South, and that instead of having but 
600,000 soldiers upon the rolls during 
the four years of the Civil War. thev 
had from 1,000,000 to 1,100,000 sol- 
diers. I presented three methods of 
calculation reaching practically the 
same result, in support of my views, 
as to these numbers. 

Since your November number was 
issued, mv attention has been called to 
a Confederate official report, made to 



the Confederate War Department in 
January, 1864, that gives more direct 
and definite information upon this sub- 
ject than I was able to present in the 
November publication. 

In Serial No. 129, page 95, of the 
official records of the Union and Con- 
federate Armies, in the War Depart- 
ment at Washington, there is an offi- 
cial report of Lieutenant-Colonel 
Blake, "Superintendent of Special 
Registration," made to the Bureau of 
Conscription of the Confederate War 
Department, at Richmond, Va., in 
January, 1864. 

The report contains a detailed state- 
ment of the number of troops fur- 
nished to the Confederate armies by 
the six States in his department of 



12 NUMBERS AND ROSTERS OF THE TWO ARMIES. 



duty, to wit: The States of \'irgiiiia. 
North Carolina, South Carohna, 
Georgia. Alabama, and Mississippi. It 
gives the number of volunteers and 
conscripts, and the number of exemp- 
tions owing to physical disabilities, in 
each of these States, and points out 
methods by which the Confederate 
forces can be increased. 

In his final summary. Lieutenant- 
Colonel Blake reports that these six 
States in his de])artment had furnished 
566.456 soldiers to the Confederate 
armies up to January 1, 1864. 

If the remaining five Confederate 
States, including Tennessee, furnished 
soldiers to the Confederate armies in 
like proportion (according to the 
census of their military po])ulation in 



isri()-1861), they must have furnished 
410.176 soldiers. 

By this just method of calculation, 
we are able to show, ajiproximately, 
that the eleven Confederate .States 
sent to the armies of the Coufcfleracy, 
up to January 1. 1S64. 982.6.S2 men. 
The enlistments and conscripts during 
the last fifteen months of the war 
must have increased this number to 
nuich more than a million men. 

Add to this number the recruits ob- 
tained from the border States (from 
90.000 to 100.000 men), and you have 
about I.IOO.CKX) soldiers, thus reaching 
practically the same result we arrived 
at by the three methods of calcula- 
tion presented in my article in your 
last issue. G. P. T. 



Statistics of Soldiers in Both Armies. 

B\! Ceil, datc.'i I'. Thrustoii (U. S. ./.), Nasln'illc, Tciiii. 



I notice in the excellent IVIarch num- 
ber of the Confederate Veteran that 
you reprint from the Baltimore Sun 
Mr. Cassenove G. Lee's ancient Civil 
War statistics as to the number of 
soldiers in the armies of the North 
and South. There is no historical 
foundation whatever for the statement 
made by him that the "total enlist- 
ments in the Confederate Army" con- 
sisted of "six hundred thousand men." 

A much more distinguished and re- 
liable Southern authority. Dr. \\'ood- 
row Wilson, of ^'irginia (now presi- 
dent of Princeton College"), in his ad- 
mirable "History of the American 
People" states the number of Fed- 
eral and Confederate soldiers in 
the Civil War as follows : "In the 
North four men out of every nine of 



the military fopulation had enlisted 
for a service of three vears in the 
field— in all. 1.700.000 out of a mili- 
tary population of 4.600.000." /"Vol- 
ume IV. ]iage 267.) And again (page 
267) he gives the numbers in the Con- 
federate armies as follows : "The total 
military population of the South (the 
seceding States) was but 1,065,000. 
Nine hundred thousand of these she 
drew into her armies for at least three 
years of service, and before the war 
ended mere half-grown boys and men 
grown old were included in the mus- 
ter." The Confederate soldiers in the 
border States were not included in Dr. 
Wilson's statement. 

In the carefully prepared "History 
of the United States." by Afr. Waddy 
Thompscn, of Atlanta, Ga., published 



This article reprinted from the Confederate Veteran. 



NUMBERS AND ROSTERS OF THE TWO ARMIES. 13 



in 1904, after its Civil War chapters 
had been reviewed by that prince of 
gentlemen and soldier. Gen. John B. 
Gordon, he slates that "it is probable 
that the total number of enlistments 
in the Confederate armies was nearly 
a million." (See preface and page 
406.) 

I am so fond of the editor of the 
Confederate Veteran and read the 
magazine with so much pleasure that 
I am anxious that it shall be historic- 
ally accurate in its statements. 



General Thruston has been studying 
the statistics of the two armies for 
yeans, and there can be no question 
of his absolute sincerity in seeking to 
have the truth established ; but he has 
been in the South so long that he must 



be pardoned for pride in reducing dis- 
crepancy of numbers. General Thrus- 
ton is one of the best citizens in the 
South, and none the less good for hav- 
ing mar' ied twice into families of cul- 
tured, ardent Southern people. True, 
he simply quotes in the foregoing from 
cordially accepted Southern authors ; 
yet tlie Veteran, while having due es- 
teem for him and them, does not agree 
to quite so great compromise of the 
statistics that have been so long ac- 
cepted. The Union Armv reduced 
from 2,800,000 to 1,700.000 and the 
Confederate increased from 600,000 to 
1,000,000 men is too great a difference. 
Southern authors should be very care- 
ful of their figures. A compromise 
from both sides as to actual three-year 
soldiers might be nearer the truth. 



ff 



LE N 10 



